02-21-2009, 08:54 PM
Shlama all--
I think it is important to make a distinction here. Y'shua DID SPEAK HEBREW liturgically. When he is reading the Isaiah scroll in Luke 3,that is IN HEBREW. The question is not if Y'shua spoke Hebrew at all but what language did he communicate in the most, and that is nearly universally acknowledged by the full spectrum of schoars to be ARAMAIC. So, if I am this author, the first thing I would do is try to "prove" Hebrew exclusive structures AGAINST Aramaic. But such cannot be done.
There are some important distinctions between Hebrew and Aramaic when it comes to issues like the number of proclitics, the use or lack of use of a definite article, and the list is relatively robust. If this person doesn't know the Peshitta text and he doesn't know the differences between the dialects of say Tanak and the Peshitta NT, then he is simply coming from a place that enetertains Semitic patterns from within the Greek, to which I say, "BIg deal?" Even Greek primacists acknowledge that fact quite easily. They simply suggest a "Jewish influenced Greek" as their explanation for the Semitic sub stratum.
To see an excellent refutation of this from exclusive Aramaic structures, I recommend this work that I mentioned before, by CF Burney: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://books.google.com/books?id=2WhAAAAAIAAJ&pg=PP7&dq=cf+burney+aramaic&lr=&as_brr=1">http://books.google.com/books?id=2WhAAA ... =&as_brr=1</a><!-- m -->
I will wager anyone that this writer can't possibly stand up to Burney's argumentation. He simply is too methodical in his critical apparatus breaking down even the Greek to a degree that is astonishing.
I think it is important to make a distinction here. Y'shua DID SPEAK HEBREW liturgically. When he is reading the Isaiah scroll in Luke 3,that is IN HEBREW. The question is not if Y'shua spoke Hebrew at all but what language did he communicate in the most, and that is nearly universally acknowledged by the full spectrum of schoars to be ARAMAIC. So, if I am this author, the first thing I would do is try to "prove" Hebrew exclusive structures AGAINST Aramaic. But such cannot be done.
There are some important distinctions between Hebrew and Aramaic when it comes to issues like the number of proclitics, the use or lack of use of a definite article, and the list is relatively robust. If this person doesn't know the Peshitta text and he doesn't know the differences between the dialects of say Tanak and the Peshitta NT, then he is simply coming from a place that enetertains Semitic patterns from within the Greek, to which I say, "BIg deal?" Even Greek primacists acknowledge that fact quite easily. They simply suggest a "Jewish influenced Greek" as their explanation for the Semitic sub stratum.
To see an excellent refutation of this from exclusive Aramaic structures, I recommend this work that I mentioned before, by CF Burney: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://books.google.com/books?id=2WhAAAAAIAAJ&pg=PP7&dq=cf+burney+aramaic&lr=&as_brr=1">http://books.google.com/books?id=2WhAAA ... =&as_brr=1</a><!-- m -->
I will wager anyone that this writer can't possibly stand up to Burney's argumentation. He simply is too methodical in his critical apparatus breaking down even the Greek to a degree that is astonishing.
Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Andrew Gabriel Roth